There are possible hazards to irradiation but there has been little risk-assessment of potential hazards. Not irradiating also has risks. The CDC for example sees the potential for better control of contamination as important enough that it recommends the adoption of irradiation. Some of the issues brought up in Louis' post are addressed. eg. the problem of transportation of radioactive materials.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodirradiation.htm#wastegenerate d The stuff about chest xrays is surely irrelevant and implicitly a scare tactic. Cheers, Ken Hanly P>S> The link that Ian posted re GMO's seems to me an excellent article with a wealth of relevant references. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 12:32 PM Subject: [PEN-L:29067] Re: Re: Industrial farming > ken hanly wrote: > > >Wow! Ill bet that will render hamburgers sterile and there will be no baby > >99 cent Macs. > > > >Cheers, Ken Hanly > > > > > Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, June 1990 > Vol. 46, No. 5 > > Zapping the food supply > > Donald B. Louria > > New arguments are boiling up over an old idea--irradiating food with > ionizing radiation to kill microorganisms and prolong shelf life. The > idea of exposing food to gamma radiation is over 30 years old, and in > 1963 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began to permit the > irradiation of wheat. Over the years, a few more foodstuffs such as > spices and tea were added to the FDA's list of candidates for > irradiation. But in 1984 the FDA started to approve irradiation of a > much broader list of products which now includes meat, poultry, and > fresh fruits and vegetables. Simultaneously the FDA has increased the > levels of radiation that may be used. The FDA's recent willingness to > allow most of the food supply to be irradiated--and at high doses--has > triggered an acrimonious debate. > > The amount of radiation involved is substantial. The FDA has approved a > 3,000,000 rad dosage for treating spices, 300,000 rad for pork, and > 100,000 rad for fresh fruits and vegetables. These intensities are > millions of times greater than that of an ordinary chest X-ray (which is > typically about 20 millirad). The announced goal of promoters of food > irradiation is to obtain general approval for the use of up to one > million rad. > > Irradiation does not make food radioactive, nor has alleged > radioactivity been at issue in the debate. But there is concern that > foods processed by irradiation may contain radiolytic products that > could have toxic effects. > > The source of radiation is either cobalt 60 or cesium 137. The prospect > of increased transportation and handling of cobalt and cesium--dangerous > substances--has caused negative publicity. Some irradiation proponents > say food processors could theoretically use as-yet-undeveloped linear > acceleration techniques instead. But if food irradiation becomes > commonplace any time soon, cesium or cobalt will be used. > > The major objective of irradiation is to destroy microorganisms that > cause food to spoil. For example, irradiating chicken should reduce the > outbreaks of salmonella that are probably caused by careless or > unhygienic methods in production and processing. Irradiating pork might > reduce the already limited risk of trichinosis, and irradiating turkey > would diminish the number of episodes of diarrhea that result from > eating undercooked meat. William McGivney, an advocate of the > technology, asserts that "irradiation offers a means to decontaminate, > disinfect and retard the spoilage of the food supply."1 Most opponents > counter that adequate cooking and hygienic preparation will accomplish > the same goal. > > Promoters of irradiation emphasize that the shelf life of various foods > will be increased. But these proponents have not produced any > projections of the actual economic, or other, benefits of longer shelf > life, especially in a developed country that has an abundant food > supply. It may be easier to imagine that less developed countries might > benefit if the shelf life of foodstuffs could be prolonged. But > advocates have made no estimates of the extent to which better > preservation would reduce world hunger, or of the cost of widespread > food irradiation in less developed countries. > > Irradiation is expected to reduce the need to use toxic chemicals as > post-harvest fumigants, but some evidence indicates that irradiated > foods are more, not less, subject to infection with certain fungi.2 > > At dispute in the controversy over food irradiation are the quality of > the FDA's safety assessment, the loss of nutritional value that > irradiated foods undergo, the risk of environmental contamination posed > by irradiation facilities, and the possible cancer-causing nature of > irradiated foods. An additional dispute revolves around the motives of > the Energy Department, which has promoted irradiation and is the > potential supplier of cesium 137, a waste byproduct of nuclear reactors. > > full: http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1990/s90/s90louria.html > > > -- > > Louis Proyect > www.marxmail.org > >
